I’d really like to thank Kim Davis for providing us with yet another wonderful illustration of why the religious are woefully unfit to hold public office. Like her and her champion, Mike Huckleberry, all too many of them are unable to grasp the difference between their factually unsupported delusions about ancient myths and fairy tales, and the revelations and “truths” that emanate from them, and the evidence-based reality that is the real world that we all – all of us – live in. And because of their inability to discern the difference between reality and fantasy, they try to use the power of the state to force their delusions on everybody else.

Davis’ behavior is among the more egregious. Not only does she insist on foisting her fairy tale on normal people, but she is so blinded by her zealous delusion that she doesn’t even comprehend her own hypocrisy and apalling lack of integrity. She insists on picking and choosing which parts of her holy book she is willing to follow, like ignoring the proscriptions against divorce and adultery, and when faced with the opportunity to resign from her position to take a stand and demonstrate her firm commitment to her religious nonsense, she doesn’t even have the courage to do that.

Granted, not all are so woefully delusional and unfit. Some religious people are indeed able to compartmentalize their religious belief and for the most part separate it from their interactions with the real world. But even then, it poses a problem in governance. Public policy must (by necessity) be based on evidentially supported facts in order to be maximally effective (and cost effective) and provide the desired outcomes. (A great example of this is sex education. Religiously inspired abstinence-only sex education has been shown to be a complete failure, with rising STD rates and teen pregnancies; while comprehensive sex education has been shown to be effective in the prevention of unwanted teen pregnancies and subsequently a reduced demand for abortion.) But if someone has a propensity to believe in nonsense despite reams of evidence showing that nonsense to be untrue or unlikely, as is the case with religious mythologies, what is the liklihood that they will make irrational judgments about public policy issues, especially where the evidence conflicts with their religious delusions? Or will they have the critical thinking skills necessary to examine evidence and make the best rational decision possible? And, of course, when questions of church-state separation arise, will they be able to make decisions that go against their innate bias toward religion?

So it seems rather obvious that if we want to safeguard our secular society, the one that the Founding Fathers envisioned, we need to be very wary of those candidates for office that publicly express any amount of religiosity, but especially those who proudly ballyhoo such ignorant delusions – like Kim Davis.